General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[HarveySwick]

Fully agree. (thumbs u A seller's integrity to honor transactions and use common sense SHOULD be enough, but it's obviously not the case with some so it seems clearly defined rules are needed.

 

SHOULD BE... but unfortunately, the majority of sellers here, much like on Ebay and Craigslist, aren't educated in the intricacies of contract law.

 

Yes and no. I agree that a seller runs his sales thread and makes the rules for his sales thread. BUT if a buyer follows those rules, he needs to honor the deal. That's pretty clearly stated - you list a book for sale, someone buys it, you SELL the book. Not "I decided I'm not going to sell it" after someone buys it. This JUST happened with oceanavekid and he rightfully ended up on the Probation List.

 

The oceanavekid scenario left me with mixed feelings as well. There are similarities in the two cases.

 

Both buyers were in the gist of some form of discussion. In oceanavekid's case, it was over price... and in trory140's case, it was over shipping to an unknown buyer/out of country/use of 3rd party.

 

In each case, when the sellers receded from the sales, both buyer's bypassed discussions and and opted for "Buy it Now" scenarios.

 

Oceanavekid's buyer Jawn bypassed the "kid's" statement of "I think I will just keep it" and did a Buy It Now to force the sale. That buyer dictated that sale and I personally don't think it was right. I showed an example of an open thread with a Walking Dead # 1 from 4 years ago and how the same scenario could be used to force a sale. Without set rules in place, even here, we are going on "board etiquette".

 

All I saw was the "kid" not wanting to sell for less and then stating he was going to "keep the book". Then Jawn, not satisfied with this explanation, used the as a technicality to force the seller into a transaction with the buyer. I do not think this was right... and I personally don't feel oceanviewkid should be on the PL because of it. Maybe I would feel differently had I really wanted that book though

 

In this current scenario, Randy posted the to trory140's book... that's a given. That said, without a stated set of general rules that we can all fall back on and use...Rory's lack of stating "whoever posts wins" takes a back seat to "we can discuss payment/shipping/pickup options" which he did state. When the seller didn't agree with the options presented, the buyer, sensing the seller's reluctance, did a Buy It Now scenario offering to send a check without stipulations.

 

Now I know Randy didn't do this to force the sale, but just to entice the seller to sell to him. The seller, not having set rules in place, went with his gut feeling and opted out... which is his right to do since discussions for his merchandise from his thread didn't work out to his liking.

 

Keep in mind that without stated board rules, all a sign is... is "board etiquette". Trory140 didn't have it listed in his "normal rules" that posting a would insure the sale of the book. "Board etiquette" might state (in the cloud where "board etiquette" resides)... that Randy get that book, unfortunately based on the wording of Rory's sales thread, and Rory's gut feeling on the transaction, plus the fact that it ultimately IS his 10K comic to do with what he pleases.

 

I have my own personal history with the use of the sign. Unless the Board posts stated, uniform rules concerning that sign... its all left up to interpretation and "board etiquette".

 

Don't get me wrong. I think Randy should be entitled to the book. That's because I know him and I've seen his purchases in the past and know that if he could, he would hand deliver that 10K to Rory in person. It's just that until both buyer and seller come to a mutual agreement based on the seller's given thread rules... one that's consented upon by both parties... then it's the seller's book until that happens.

 

 

I think the call for HOS has become something out of hand lately where every single transgression leads to "Let's add him to the HOS! " But I don't think there is anything wrong with a buyer ASKING for opinions and people offering those opinions as is the case here. Randy started a thread to ask other's opinions on the matter. That's how most of these discussions arise - someone looking for advice.

 

Asking opinions is fine and Randy has the full right to do this, but when opinions escalate into the snowball effect that they often do on the boards, they tend to become more "facts" than "opinions" in the eyes of the people who read them.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply. (thumbs u Unfortunately, I think we're just though because nothing is going to change. Sellers are responsible for their own sales threads and when they're too lazy to clearly define the rules of THEIR sales thread and essentially giving themselves cart Blanche to sell to who they want to and how they want to, not much you can really do other than add them to personal lists and move on. The book should be Randy's and it won't be so that's that.

 

" " is what it's all about Justin

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

True. I guess that is why the thread is titled "GENERAL DISCUSSION"

 

[mschmidt]

He did Roy. He put it on hold while they worked out shipping/payment terms. 3rd party was mentioned and the seller did not agree. Book off hold. The seller is not obligated to give any more time to this.

 

The buyer suggested a 3rd party because he was unsure. The seller decided not to proceed because he was unsure.

 

Personally I would have sold Quad the book but I'm not the seller and I back his decision to say no to the suggestion and therefore the sale.

 

If it was an unconditional then no need to suggest a 3rd party. Tell me you have never been involved in a live negotiation like this. We both know you have.

 

But it was an unconditional , Jeff.

 

Look at the PM - does Quad stipulate any sort of conditions in there? It's the seller who moves the conversation to shipping/payment terms where Quad then lists a couple of options (and when those options are rejected seems happy to follow the rules of the sales thread to the letter).

 

If Quad had posted ":takeit: with shipping to Canada & payment by Paypal", it would have been a completely different story - but he didn't.

 

I disagree Michael. He posted the and because he did that everyone is claiming it was unconditional. The rest of the conversation tells me it was not unconditional.

 

But the rest of the conversation was initiated by the seller and, again, it was obvious that Quad was perfectly willing to follow the sales thread rules to the letter :shrug:

 

Let me put it this way ... I post a "takeit" in a thread or PM. The seller responds by saying "let's discuss sales/shipping options". Should I now expect that my "takeit" suddenly doesn't count?

[comicdonna]

He did Roy. He put it on hold while they worked out shipping/payment terms. 3rd party was mentioned and the seller did not agree. Book off hold. The seller is not obligated to give any more time to this.

 

The buyer suggested a 3rd party because he was unsure. The seller decided not to proceed because he was unsure.

 

Personally I would have sold Quad the book but I'm not the seller and I back his decision to say no to the suggestion and therefore the sale.

 

If it was an unconditional then no need to suggest a 3rd party. Tell me you have never been involved in a live negotiation like this. We both know you have.

 

But it was an unconditional , Jeff.

 

Look at the PM - does Quad stipulate any sort of conditions in there? It's the seller who moves the conversation to shipping/payment terms where Quad then lists a couple of options (and when those options are rejected seems happy to follow the rules of the sales thread to the letter).

 

If Quad had posted ":takeit: with shipping to Canada & payment by Paypal", it would have been a completely different story - but he didn't.

 

I disagree Michael. He posted the and because he did that everyone is claiming it was unconditional. The rest of the conversation tells me it was not unconditional.

 

But the rest of the conversation was initiated by the seller and, again, it was obvious that Quad was perfectly willing to follow the sales thread rules to the letter :shrug:

 

Let me put it this way ... I post a "takeit" in a thread or PM. The seller responds by saying "let's discuss sales/shipping options". Should I now expect that my "takeit" suddenly doesn't count?

It blows, Michael. Randy is a really good sport.

[N/A]

He did Roy. He put it on hold while they worked out shipping/payment terms. 3rd party was mentioned and the seller did not agree. Book off hold. The seller is not obligated to give any more time to this.

 

The buyer suggested a 3rd party because he was unsure. The seller decided not to proceed because he was unsure.

 

Personally I would have sold Quad the book but I'm not the seller and I back his decision to say no to the suggestion and therefore the sale.

 

If it was an unconditional then no need to suggest a 3rd party. Tell me you have never been involved in a live negotiation like this. We both know you have.

 

But it was an unconditional , Jeff.

 

Look at the PM - does Quad stipulate any sort of conditions in there? It's the seller who moves the conversation to shipping/payment terms where Quad then lists a couple of options (and when those options are rejected seems happy to follow the rules of the sales thread to the letter).

 

If Quad had posted ":takeit: with shipping to Canada & payment by Paypal", it would have been a completely different story - but he didn't.

 

I disagree Michael. He posted the and because he did that everyone is claiming it was unconditional. The rest of the conversation tells me it was not unconditional.

 

But the rest of the conversation was initiated by the seller and, again, it was obvious that Quad was perfectly willing to follow the sales thread rules to the letter :shrug:

 

Let me put it this way ... I post a "takeit" in a thread or PM. The seller responds by saying "let's discuss sales/shipping options". Should I now expect that my "takeit" suddenly doesn't count?

 

Of course not.

[Bomber-Bob]

I'm just not seeing anyone at fault here.

- I totally agree with GATOR's view of the On Hold being the equivalent of a conditional I'll Take It.

- I do think Quadman holds the rightful claim to the book.

- However, I totally understand the need of the seller to feel comfortable with the terms of the sale. While I would like to see him sell it to Quadman, I don't think it is probation worthy if he does not.

 

How is it not probation worthy if he doesn't?

 

He posted a book, had 2 ppls offer to buy it and now the seller says nah not going to sell it.

 

Reverse it like many have said, I offer to buy a book and then say nah not going to buy it would be hung up to dry.

 

Randy met all of his criteria:

- US address

- Non paypal payment

 

I agree with you, Randy met all the seller's criteria. I do think Randy is entitled to the book and I would like to see him sell it to Randy. One more thing that was mentioned but not discussed. Someone posted in the thread about the book/price being a steal. Perhaps, this comment had the seller reconsider. Even as a buyer I cringe when I see these comments for fear the seller may change his mind. I just don't think they are appropriate.

[mschmidt]

I'm just not seeing anyone at fault here.

- I totally agree with GATOR's view of the On Hold being the equivalent of a conditional I'll Take It.

- I do think Quadman holds the rightful claim to the book.

- However, I totally understand the need of the seller to feel comfortable with the terms of the sale. While I would like to see him sell it to Quadman, I don't think it is probation worthy if he does not.

 

How is it not probation worthy if he doesn't?

 

He posted a book, had 2 ppls offer to buy it and now the seller says nah not going to sell it.

 

Reverse it like many have said, I offer to buy a book and then say nah not going to buy it would be hung up to dry.

 

Randy met all of his criteria:

- US address

- Non paypal payment

 

I agree with you, Randy met all the seller's criteria. I do think Randy is entitled to the book and I would like to see him sell it to Randy. One more thing that was mentioned but not discussed. Someone posted in the thread about the book/price being a steal. Perhaps, this comment had the seller reconsider. Even as a buyer I cringe when I see these comments for fear the seller may change his mind. I just don't think they are appropriate.

 

Well, if it makes any difference, most of the time when people post "it's a steal" or "great price", it's neither

[N/A]

 

More often than not

[Bomber-Bob]

 

I have a hard time understanding how 'on hold' can mean anything else other than the book is on hold.

 

If something is on hold, it's unavailable, whether it's underwear on layaway or real estate. To me 'on hold' = temporarily unavailable.

 

The seller had no obligation to hold the book but he did and so those words are binding.

 

Or does someone disagree?

 

Whenever I am at a convention, inevitably most dealers have multiple stacks of books set aside because they are 'On Hold" for so and so. We all know so and so doesn't buy all the books, they are just setting them aside to prevent others from buying them. I would hate to see this same technique employed in a sales thread. In this specific case I think the seller should have stated the book is Sold, not On Hold. There is a difference.

[N/A]

Exactly and because it was on hold and not sold then why would the buyer be ok with that?

[VintageComics]

He did Roy. He put it on hold while they worked out shipping/payment terms. 3rd party was mentioned and the seller did not agree. Book off hold. The seller is not obligated to give any more time to this.

 

The buyer suggested a 3rd party because he was unsure. The seller decided not to proceed because he was unsure.

 

Except he did not decide to proceed because he was unsure, he decided to proceed because there was another sale waiting in the wings.

 

Ultimately, quadman78 was willing to meet any terms necessary - that was the point of the hold and negotiation. The negotiation broke down as soon as the seller decided it was easier to take Rick's offer - which ultimately ended up being the same as quadman74's offer.

 

In that case, the book wasn't actually held. It was just 'kind-of-but-not-really-held".

 

Based on the fact that the seller was willing to negotiate, and that the buyer was willing to agree to almost anything the seller wanted (remember, price was not an issue they were simply discussing payment and shipping options), what would have been the right thing to do is to go to quadman78, tell him that he has an unconditional sale pending with shipping in the US and no Paypal and whether quadman78 could meet those conditions.

 

That's what I would have done (and have done when in a position where more than one person wants an item).

 

And again, this all happened because the seller stated that the book was being held to finalize a deal. If he hadn't stated he would hold the book then GAtor would have been the better choice.

 

Personally I would have sold Quad the book but I'm not the seller and I back his decision to say no to the suggestion and therefore the sale.

 

Without question I would have sold the book to Quad too and I disagree with the seller's decision.

 

If it was an unconditional then no need to suggest a 3rd party. Tell me you have never been involved in a live negotiation like this. We both know you have.

 

Of course I have but what does me being involved in 3rd party negotiations have to do with this case? As long as there are no conditions to a sale / negotiation it's open to anything.

 

The seller placed the condition of a hold. He is obligated to hold the book based on his word until the buyer agrees that he can not meet the seller's conditions.

 

The entire discussion pivots on the seller's commitment to 'hold the book while they try to meet terms'. As far as I can tell, based on what we know, there wasn't a real effort to meet on terms...if there was, the seller would have ultimately had the same terms from either buyer.

[VintageComics]

 

I have a hard time understanding how 'on hold' can mean anything else other than the book is on hold.

 

If something is on hold, it's unavailable, whether it's underwear on layaway or real estate. To me 'on hold' = temporarily unavailable.

 

The seller had no obligation to hold the book but he did and so those words are binding.

 

Or does someone disagree?

 

Whenever I am at a convention, inevitably most dealers have multiple stacks of books set aside because they are 'On Hold" for so and so. We all know so and so doesn't buy all the books, they are just setting them aside to prevent others from buying them. I would hate to see this same technique employed in a sales thread. In this specific case I think the seller should have stated the book is Sold, not On Hold. There is a difference.

 

You're talking about two very different things and you're bringing emotion into the discussion when it's clear cut that there was a written contract.

 

We're not privy to why books are being held at shows or on the forum. Some are held as committed purchases. Some are held because people want to flip through the books, etc.

 

Here are the rules as posted by the OP:

 

Normal rules apply

USA Shipping only

No Paypal on these

We can discuss payment/shipping/pickup options

I have done a few large deals here 5k-20k if you would like boardies names lmk and ill ask them to vouch for me.

 

In this case, based on the PM exchange posted, quadman78 was obviously fully committed to the purchase as he was willing to pay the full $10K. The only purpose of the hold was to

 

a) figure out how to get that money to the seller

b) how to get the book to the buyer.

 

He was willing to pay outside of Paypal

He was willing to have the book shipped to a US address.

 

You'll note that the seller even encouraged discussion on payment / shipping / pickup options.

 

Those negotiations were cut short unfairly IMO because both buyers were willing to fulfill those conditions. It just took a little longer with quadman78 - and based on the book being on hold, I'd have figured that quadman78 should have had a reasonable amount of time t speak his peace before being shut out.

 

And again, it's important to note that the seller was the one that instituted the hold based on negotiation and the seller didn't fully explain. If the seller removes the hold before negotiation is complete it's a cheesy move in any negotiation, whether it's real estate, comics or anything else.

[Sqeggs]

It's academic now, because no nomination to the PL is in the offing, but I'm reposting my follow up to Dr. Love's observation in the sales thread.

 

While the buyer paying by check reduces the risk to the seller, shipping to an address other than the buyer's home/business does incur some risk to the seller. Shipping to a third party is also a complication that a seller might legitimately want to avoid.

 

I can understand the seller wanting as clean a deal as possible, but in hindsight his TOS should have been clearer and he should have avoided posting "book on hold" in the thread. That is hindsight, though, and after mulling it over, I don't think a problem like this is what the PL was designed for.

 

Moreover, although I think in general the way the selling threads are handled is slanted in favor of sellers, I think Bio-Rupp's point is well-taken that we sometimes seem to be expecting perfection in how sellers write up their TOS and handle their transactions. The seller here wasn't trying to pull a fast one, he was just a little lazy with his TOS and perhaps overcautious in not wanting to deal with the complications in the PM offer. My

[VintageComics]

It's academic now,

 

Agreed, and at this point the discussion is geared more towards how to prevent this in the future than to penalize anybody.

 

 

[N/A]

 

I have a hard time understanding how 'on hold' can mean anything else other than the book is on hold.

 

If something is on hold, it's unavailable, whether it's underwear on layaway or real estate. To me 'on hold' = temporarily unavailable.

 

The seller had no obligation to hold the book but he did and so those words are binding.

 

Or does someone disagree?

 

Whenever I am at a convention, inevitably most dealers have multiple stacks of books set aside because they are 'On Hold" for so and so. We all know so and so doesn't buy all the books, they are just setting them aside to prevent others from buying them. I would hate to see this same technique employed in a sales thread. In this specific case I think the seller should have stated the book is Sold, not On Hold. There is a difference.

 

You're talking about two very different things and you're bringing emotion into the discussion when it's clear cut that there was a written contract.

 

We're not privy to why books are being held at shows or on the forum. Some are held as committed purchases. Some are held because people want to flip through the books, etc.

 

Here are the rules as posted by the OP:

 

Normal rules apply

USA Shipping only

No Paypal on these

We can discuss payment/shipping/pickup options

I have done a few large deals here 5k-20k if you would like boardies names lmk and ill ask them to vouch for me.

 

In this case, based on the PM exchange posted, quadman78 was obviously fully committed to the purchase as he was willing to pay the full $10K. The only purpose of the hold was to

 

a) figure out how to get that money to the seller

b) how to get the book to the buyer.

 

He was willing to pay outside of Paypal

He was willing to have the book shipped to a US address.

 

You'll note that the seller even encouraged discussion on payment / shipping / pickup options.

 

Those negotiations were cut short unfairly IMO because both buyers were willing to fulfill those conditions. It just took a little longer with quadman78 - and based on the book being on hold, I'd have figured that quadman78 should have had a reasonable amount of time t speak his peace before being shut out.

 

And again, it's important to note that the seller was the one that instituted the hold based on negotiation and the seller didn't fully explain. If the seller removes the hold before negotiation is complete it's a cheesy move in any negotiation, whether it's real estate, comics or anything else.

 

Cheesy yes but well within his rights to do so. The seller pulled the plug immediately after the 3rd party suggestion. He did not like the terms. Negotiation over. Thanks for your interest.

 

The negotiations may have lasted longer if there was no other buyer waiting but the seller is not obligated to continue the discussion.

 

The PM could have easily been

 

from the buyer

 

No thanks, you're from Canada and I only ship to the US.

 

Seller removes himself from PM

 

New buyer posts

 

Sold. Done

 

I see the seller as giving the buyer a chance. You're in Canada? I only ship to the US but what are you suggesting? A 3rd party? No thanks. Seller removes himself from PM. The rest of the PM is irrelevant. I agree it shows the buyers desire to meet any conditions to buy the book but it's too late. Nervous seller, nervous buyer. Seller finds a less nervous buyer and is less nervous himself.

 

Lessons learned all around.

[N/A]

 

While the buyer paying by check reduces the risk to the seller, shipping to an address other than the buyer's home/business does incur some risk to the seller. Shipping to a third party is also a complication that a seller might legitimately want to avoid.

 

And is a reasonable reason to back away.

[VintageComics]

 

I see the seller as giving the buyer a chance. You're in Canada? I only ship to the US but what are you suggesting? A 3rd party? No thanks. Seller removes himself from PM. The rest of the PM is irrelevant. I agree it shows the buyers desire to meet any conditions to buy the book but it's too late. Nervous seller, nervous buyer. Seller finds a less nervous buyer and is less nervous himself.

 

Lessons learned all around.

 

The problem is that the seller did not give a reasonable effort into this statement (which he made of his own volition).

 

Ill put a hold on it until we can agree on shipping/payment terms

 

Yes, he could have dropped the negotiation after the first PM exchange but he didn't. He could have dropped it after the 2nd PM exchange but he didn't.

 

He dropped the negotiation (which he had committed to) as soon as someone else stepped up. That's like a slap in the face.

 

Personally (and I'm not a lawyer so anyone involved with contract law can speak up although I think at least one lawyer chimed in) I think in a court of law you could actually show that the seller did not honour his stipulation to hold the book until they could try to find an agreement.

 

And I agree, it was a learning experience.

 

 

[Comicopolis]

This post is on hold.

[Peter Loves Gwen]

On/Off topic; I don't know why Paypal was being avoided, but if it was only about the fees, why doesn't a buyer offer to pay the fees?

 

I don't know what upper limits Paypal may have. I would gladly pay with Paypal to insure a transaction, if I was willing to pay the extra 3+% in fees.

 

Paypal should have that as another method, fees charged to the sender. I can do math anyway; pay the intended total, and immediately send the fees amount as a personal payment(you are paying the owed fees(not buying something)).

 

It's a shame to see transactions go sideways like that, I hope people learn from it though.

[CAHokie]

Maybe he was trying to avoid paying taxes.

[revat]

On/Off topic; I don't know why Paypal was being avoided, but if it was only about the fees, why doesn't a buyer offer to pay the fees?

 

I don't know what upper limits Paypal may have. I would gladly pay with Paypal to insure a transaction, if I was willing to pay the extra 3+% in fees.

 

Paypal should have that as another method, fees charged to the sender. I can do math anyway; pay the intended total, and immediately send the fees amount as a personal payment(you are paying the owed fees(not buying something)).

 

It's a shame to see transactions go sideways like that, I hope people learn from it though.

 

there's actually a lot of reasons not to use paypal.

 

1. Paypal fees.

2. Tax reporting.

3. No paypal account.

4. Prior issues with paypal.

5. Doesn't trust paypal in terms of potential dispute resolution.

6. Prior issues with EBAY, and doesn't want them to get any more money (they own paypal).

 

Some of these reasons can be a bit personal, but they are not uncommon or unreasonable, although people should generally pay taxes they owe.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Revat